1. Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Engineering and Construction Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief Thomas A. Harley P.E.

2. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Organizational Structure Joseph F. Marie Commissioner Bureau of Policy & Planning Multimodal System Planning Bureau of Public Transportation Operating of Rails & Buses Bureau of Highway Operations Operating of Highways Bureau of Engineering & Construction Multimodal Implementation of Capital Program Bureau of Finance & Administration Budgeting and HR Operations Bureau of Aviation & Ports Operating of Airport & Sea Ports

3. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Mission Statement The Mission of the Bureau of Engineering and Construction is the implementation of the capital program for all transportation modes. It includes engineering and construction services as well as property acquisition and management, research and material testing, and quality assurance programs.

4. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Organizational Structure Thomas Harley, PE Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief James Norman, PE Engineering Administrator Richard Allen Rights of Way Administrator James Fallon, PE Quality Assurance Division Chief Lewis Cannon, PE Construction Administrator

5. Bureau of Engineering and Construction TSB Talking Points April 2010 Status of the Capital Plan How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan? (Where do projects come from?) Major Accomplishments Challenges TSB Talking Points April 2010 Status of the Capital Plan How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan? (Where do projects come from?) Major Accomplishments Challenges

6. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Status of Capital Plan Aviation & Ports – small Capital Program in good shape. (Not over subscribed.) Public Transportation – program is over subscribed, see published 5 yr Capital Plan Highway System (including bridges) - over subscribed, see 5 yr Capital Plan -focus on system preservation (FIF or state of good repair). Few discretionary projects are affordable. System Enhancements take a lower priority Status of Capital Plan Aviation & Ports – small Capital Program in good shape. (Not over subscribed.) Public Transportation – program is over subscribed, see published 5 yr Capital Plan Highway System (including bridges) - over subscribed, see 5 yr Capital Plan -focus on system preservation (FIF or state of good repair). Few discretionary projects are affordable. System Enhancements take a lower priority

7. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Anticipated Funding 2010-2014 Five Year Capital Program FederalStateTotal Highway and Bridge Program Total Funding Available$1,594,250,000$833,790,000$2,428,040,000 Total Funding Committed to Projects$1,466,430,000$607,385,000$2,073,815,000 Total Funding Uncommitted$127,820,000$226,405,000$354,225,000 Transit Program Total Funding Available$1,300,410,000$839,040,000$2,139,450,000 Total Funding Committed to Projects$828,803,000$738,430,000$1,567,233,000 Total Funding Uncommitted$471,607,000$100,610,000$572,217,000

8. Bureau of Engineering and Construction How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan? Departments Long Range Planning, Master Transportation Plan, input from Regional Planning partners are avenues by which major long range initiatives take form and develop momentum (or not). Shorter Term Needs and Deficiency identified principally by Department thru: - Asset Management Programs - Performance Metrics Goals - Safety Programs - Congestion Mitigation Programs How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan? Departments Long Range Planning, Master Transportation Plan, input from Regional Planning partners are avenues by which major long range initiatives take form and develop momentum (or not). Shorter Term Needs and Deficiency identified principally by Department thru: - Asset Management Programs - Performance Metrics Goals - Safety Programs - Congestion Mitigation Programs

9. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Major Accomplishments Implemented Organizational Changes Specifically a QA/QC Unit Constrained Capital Plan intended to publicize the current fiscal realities New Haven Rail Yard Q Bridge Corridor Progress - 2 nd Bridge contract starting in earnest - Final large contract for interchanges being bid in 2010 Rte 7 Corridor - Brookfield Bypass - Danbury contracts 7 & 15 resolution from consensus building perspective Moses Wheeler - Phase 1 (under CN) Phase 2 (Bid 2010) Major Accomplishments Implemented Organizational Changes Specifically a QA/QC Unit Constrained Capital Plan intended to publicize the current fiscal realities New Haven Rail Yard Q Bridge Corridor Progress - 2 nd Bridge contract starting in earnest - Final large contract for interchanges being bid in 2010 Rte 7 Corridor - Brookfield Bypass - Danbury contracts 7 & 15 resolution from consensus building perspective Moses Wheeler - Phase 1 (under CN) Phase 2 (Bid 2010)

10. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Challenges Funding Constraints - Federal Authority, no long range federal authorization - Expiration of FIF Funding $s - Expiration of Gov 95 and Non 95 $ - Revenue funds vs bonding Addressing the over programming backlog over coming years Preservation First Challenges Funding Constraints - Federal Authority, no long range federal authorization - Expiration of FIF Funding $s - Expiration of Gov 95 and Non 95 $ - Revenue funds vs bonding Addressing the over programming backlog over coming years Preservation First

11. Bureau Of Engineering and Construction Miscellaneous - Highway Mode Funding Breakdown - Bureau staffing levels and potential retirements - Department wide staffing and potential retirements -Use of Consulting Services vs State Engineering -District Offices Miscellaneous - Highway Mode Funding Breakdown - Bureau staffing levels and potential retirements - Department wide staffing and potential retirements -Use of Consulting Services vs State Engineering -District Offices

15. Bureau of Engineering and Construction in 1993, the Department initiated an in-house study of the cost of using Consultant Engineers as compared with State forces for designing construction projects. The study concluded that it was more cost effective to use State forces for projects under $5 million and Consultants for projects over $5 million. Based on these findings, the Department went to the Legislature and was successful in getting more positions and in converting existing durational positions to permanent positions. Construction Dollar Value Number of Projects 77% Accomplished By Consultants 67% Accomplished By State Forces From a 2007 Review Using Consultant Engineers as compared with State forces for Designing Construction Projects

16. Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations